A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Vivisectus]

Another one for the list: The Amazing Lessans, the only man in the world who had no presuppositions!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They both work the same way because the object must be in range for it to be resolved by the film or by the retina. This is why we see the same thing that a camera photographs.

Except when we can't and don't see the same thing a camera photographs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So we can add "counterfactual" to the list of words you do not understand. By counterfactual truths I mean claims about how things would be if only conditions were somewhat different. Such claims are not observational.

No, the conditions are not observational but the principles that lead to those conditions are. You must have used a different definition than the one I used.

coun·ter·fac·tu·al (kountr-fkch-l)
adj.
Running contrary to the facts: "Cold war historiography vividly illustrates how the selection of the counterfactual question to be asked generally anticipates the desired answer" (Timothy Garton Ash).
counter·factu·al n.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
counterfactual [ˌkauntəˈfæktʃʊəl] Logic
adj
(Philosophy / Logic) expressing what has not happened but could, would, or might under differing conditions
n
(Philosophy / Logic) a conditional statement in which the first clause is a past tense subjunctive statement expressing something contrary to fact, as in if she had hurried she would have caught the bus

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's one example: Man's will is not free which is an observational claim, not a theoretical one.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope, that's not an observational claim at all. That is a philosophical and theoretical claim.

No it is not Spacemonkey. I will repeat: Just because the observations that Lessans clearly demonstrated are difficult for you to validate because your faulty logic is getting in the way, does not mean that his observations were incorrect.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is also general rather than particular. It isn't even remotely analogous to an observational claim like stating an observed change in color.

It is a inductive generalization that came from observing many cultures and civilizations throughout history.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Naturalist.atheist was right. You really can't distinguish observation from explanation.

I don't see that as a problem.

[Vivisectus]

It is a inductive generalization that came from observing many cultures and civilizations throughout history.

Awesome! He travelled through time as well, observing these cultures and civilisations throughout history?

You make the words Observing and Observations do a lot of work, don't you?

I don't see that as a problem.

One of your best replies yet.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by derper

Charging him with a modal fallacy for one.

Really, derper? Can you explain WHY he did not commit a modal fallacy, when I and several others have explained why he has? Just SAYING he hasn't isn't enough. Haven't you learned that yet?

Do you even know what the modal fallacy IS? No, of course you don't!

You misunderstood that whole example. How many times did I say light is present at the eye because light is not traveling to the eye.

Light is not traveling to the eye? So light does not move, according to you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because it is a general claim, rather than a particular one, it should not be called observational. That was his whole point.

We are always making general claims then, for we cannot observe every single apple falling down from every single tree.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The only one whose logic is incorrect is you. The logical fallacies of Lessans' claims about free will and determinism have been demonstrated to you, along with linked, supporting essays by a prominent philosopher and author which you no doubt failed to read.

They have not been pointed out to me in any way, shape, or form. I know who Norman Swartz is and he has nothing over Lessans. Who cares how prominent someone is. It doesn't mean they have all the answers, or that their answers are necessarily correct due to their stature.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is. It is because it has two sides, and it is a mathematical equation; it just doesn't contain numbers, but so what. How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Oh, rully?

Yes rully.

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you even know what "valid" and "sound" mean in logcial argumentation? These words have specific meanings. If so, supply Spacemonkey's premises and conclusion, and then demonstrate for us why his argument is "valid" but not "sound."

An argument is valid if it is deductively valid. That is, if the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. But a valid argument need not have true premises.

An argument is sound if it is valid, noncircular, and contains only true premises. In that case, the conclusion is not only necessarily implied by the premises, it is also necessarily true.

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

This was not a contradiction. Light does travel to get where its going, but sight is not dependent on that light. It only needs light surrounding the object in order to see said object if sight is efferent. You are basing your logic on afferent sight, which would then be a contradiction.

Originally Posted by davidm

Utter crap, you deceitful little ignormus, as has been demonstrated to you in literally hundreds of different ways. Hey, peacegirl, what about the moons of Jupiter? Care to tackle just that one example that proves real-time seeing is false?

You can't get over this claim, can you? I am sorry that you are having such a hard time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the presupposition, or assumption, or assertion (pick one). There is no "after the fact" possible with this claim because the "no blame" environment has not yet existed.

His claim that we have no free will is not a presupposition. The way conscience works is not a presupposition. These are observations that he saw directly. He made no assumptions. Sorry but you're wrong. If I calculate the distance from my home to Florida, this is not a presupposition, even though I haven't arrived in Florida yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You even demonstrate that you are aware of this here:

That doesn't make it a presupposition. The factors that will catapult us into this new world are not assumed, they are known (i.e., conscience and no free will), even though the results of these claims haven't been manifested yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's an inference of future events if the presupposition "conscience is infallible under specific environmental conditions" is true.

But he proves this. It is not assumed. I feel like I'm talking to myself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, to summarize- Lessans presupposes that conscience works a certain way when not corrupted by the free will environment that includes blame and punishment.

What are you misunderstanding here?

Lessans presupposed nothing. He had facts. Presuppositions are not facts, they are assumptions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except when we can't and don't see the same thing a camera photographs.

Not if we can't see with our naked eye. But if we had a powerful enough telescope, we would be seeing the same exact thing.

[LadyShea]

We are always making general claims then, for we cannot observe every single apple falling down from every single tree.

One can't even hope to directly observe man's will and it's non freedom like one can observe a falling apple. One can test apples by dropping them under controlled conditions, again not possible with the non freedom of man's will.

This is not analogous

[LadyShea]

Bullshit. You and I discussed actual truths versus necessary truths and you just dropped that line of discussion because you couldn't address it.

Lessans took an actual truth and illicitly deemed it a necessary truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An argument is valid if it is deductively valid. That is, if the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. But a valid argument need not have true premises.

An argument is sound if it is valid, noncircular, and contains only true premises. In that case, the conclusion is not only necessarily implied by the premises, it is also necessarily true.

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

This is an unsupported assertion. How about you demonstrate how it is unsound?

How could he directly observer how conscience works in an environment that does not and has not existed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He made no assumptions. Sorry but you're wrong. If I calculate the distance from my home to Florida, this is not a presupposition, even though I haven't arrived in Florida yet.

You presuppose that there are roads can take you from your home to the state of Florida based on evidence from others until you see those roads for yourself.

We all presuppose all kinds of things every day or we couldn't function. There are too many things we cannot directly observe for ourselves...such as how conscience works under conditions that have never nor currently exist.

The conditions under which conscience works in the way Lessans claims have never existed so how things will work at some future point MUST be presupposed and cannot be known.

Really, are you this thick?

He can't prove it because the changed conditions do not yet exist which are necessary to demonstrate the truth of his claims.

I feel like I am talking to a rather slow child.

Show me any evidence that conscience is infallible when not corrupted by a free will environment that includes blame and punishment. If it's a fact it should be easy to do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if we can't see with our naked eye. But if we had a powerful enough telescope, we would be seeing the same exact thing.

Why can't Hubble display those galaxies on a viewing screen (like a digital camera), yet it can photograph them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One can't even hope to directly observe man's will and it's non freedom like one can observe a falling apple. One can test apples by dropping them under controlled conditions, again not possible with the non freedom of man's will.

This is not analogous

It is very analogous. The only difference is that one is not as obvious to the average observer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't Hubble display those galaxies on a viewing screen (like a digital camera), yet it can photograph them?

My only response is that I thought film cameras worked the same way digital cameras worked; just a newer technology. I really don't want to discuss this, so you don't have to answer me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bullshit. You and I discussed actual truths versus necessary truths and you just dropped that line of discussion because you couldn't address it.

This is not a contingent truth; it's a necessary truth because there are no qualifiers. I can see that you have no grasp of Lessans' observation of "greater satisfaction". You feel he was wrong based on your own understanding, which is very limited. How in the world do you expect to understand why this is a necessary truth if you can't understand why his proof of determinism is not a modal fallacy?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans took an actual truth and illicitly deemed it a necessary truth.

You're wrong and I didn't come here to rehash the same argument you had early on. I'm not going to waste my time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An argument is valid if it is deductively valid. That is, if the premises necessarily imply the conclusion. But a valid argument need not have true premises.

An argument is sound if it is valid, noncircular, and contains only true premises. In that case, the conclusion is not only necessarily implied by the premises, it is also necessarily true.

Spacemonkey's argument is not sound.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is an unsupported assertion. How about you demonstrate how it is unsound?

I don't know where you've been but I have showed him that he is completely wrong as far as blameworthiness relating to feelings of remorse. Nevermind. I'm not going to beat my head against the wall.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This comes after the fact, not before. THERE WERE NO PRESUPPOSITIONS, WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[conscience]is infallible under different environmental conditions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the presupposition, or assumption, or assertion (pick one). There is no "after the fact" possible with this claim because the "no blame" environment has not yet existed.

The way conscience works is not a presupposition. He made these observations directly without any assumptions, although he believed he was on the right track.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How could he directly observer how conscience works in an environment that does not and has not existed?

Because our nature is the same whether we are in a free will or a no free will environment. Our will never changes (it's an invariable law LadyShea) so he could observe that man has no free will without having to be in the new environment. That said, we can't use this knowledge to our advantage until we remove all blame. This shows me more and more that you understand very little and I don't think I'm going to make any progress at all, in spite of all my efforts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He made no assumptions. Sorry but you're wrong. If I calculate the distance from my home to Florida, this is not a presupposition, even though I haven't arrived in Florida yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You presuppose that there are roads can take you from your home to the state of Florida based on evidence from others until you see those roads for yourself.

That isn't even what I was referring to. Assuming that you see the road in front of you, the calculations as to how long it will take is not based on the actual experience of driving there. They are based on mathematical laws which allow you to know your approximate arrival time (barring any catastrophe).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We all presuppose all kinds of things every day or we couldn't function. There are too many things we cannot directly observe for ourselves...such as how conscience works under conditions that have never nor currently exist.

LadyShea, I'm sorry, but I'm giving up on this conversation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You even demonstrate that you are aware of this here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The factors that will catapult us into this new world are not assumed, they are known (i.e., conscience and no free will), even though the results of these claims haven't been manifested yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The conditions under which conscience works in the way Lessans claims have never existed so how things will work at some future point MUST be presupposed and cannot be known.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"Really, are you this thick?[/quote]

I just explained why you can calculate something beforehand so that you know what will happen, not presuppose what will happen. A final result can be known.
[quote="LadyShea

That's an inference of future events if the presupposition "conscience is infallible under specific environmental conditions" is true.

So what? An inference is a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he proves this. It is not assumed. I feel like I'm talking to myself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He can't prove it because the changed conditions do not yet exist which are necessary to demonstrate the truth of his claims.

I feel like I am talking to a rather slow child.

Please go back to the other thread, okay?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, to summarize- Lessans presupposes that conscience works a certain way when not corrupted by the free will environment that includes blame and punishment.

What are you misunderstanding here?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans presupposed nothing. He had facts. Presuppositions are not facts, they are assumptions.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Show me any evidence that conscience is infallible when not corrupted by a free will environment that includes blame and punishment. If it's a fact it should be easy to do.

The entire second chapter is devoted to this. I'm not going to cut and paste, nor am I going to explain it in my own words because your responses show me you don't even understand why Lessans' claim of no free will is not a modal fallacy. We have no basis for communication. I have to let this thread go because you all feed off of each other, and I've become the joke.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are always making general claims then, for we cannot observe every single apple falling down from every single tree.

Yes, but those general claims are not observational claims. They can only be inferred on the basis of what is directly observed.

Maybe there were actual observations behind his claims about conscience. But if so then we simply do not know what they were, because he didn't share them. They claims he actually shared were not observational claims.

His arguments require the truth of the presuppositions I listed for you. It is of course possible that they were not presuppositions for him. He might have made actual observations which he did not share and which would have supported these presuppositions. But because he never shared these observations, the requirements I listed remain presuppositions with respect to what he presented in his book - simply because his arguments require them to be true, yet he gave no reasons for thinking that they are true.

So you can continue whining about how he never personally presupposed anything all you like. It makes no difference. They still remain presuppositions with respect to the material that he actually shared with us. That means no-one has any reason to agree with his claims until you can find some way to support those things which are presupposed by what he actually wrote.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This was not a contradiction. Light does travel to get where its going, but sight is not dependent on that light. It only needs light surrounding the object in order to see said object if sight is efferent. You are basing your logic on afferent sight, which would then be a contradiction.

Wrong. I based my logic only on what you have tried to tell me about efferent vision. The contradiction comes from you and you alone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as cameras, the light at a camera is the same light at the eye. Light does not have to travel light years to reach the camera in order for a picture to be taken. They both work the same way because the object must be in range for it to be resolved by the film or by the retina. This is why we see the same thing that a camera photographs.

They can't work the same way if Lessans was right, because cameras don't have a brain to "look out" and "see" things. Unless this activity of the brain (i.e. the actually efferent part of efferent vision) is completely redundant, they have to work differently.

Since you've gone and brought up vision again, I'm going to require you to answer my list of questions again. The problem for you was Question 4. If you answer 'No' then you have to explain how light which arrived from somewhere other than the object being photographed can have properties which will interact with the film to create an image of that object. If you answer 'Yes' then you have to explain how the light's properties can change during its travel time to match the state of the object at the time when the photograph is taken and the light hits the film.

Neither problem is solvable, and that's why you kept flip-flopping between answering 'Yes' and 'No' each time you realized the answer you were trying to give wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, but those general claims are not observational claims. They can only be inferred on the basis of what is directly observed.

That's fair enough. Then he made a general claim, similar to the general claim that apples always fall down, not up, from trees due to gravity.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Maybe there were actual observations behind his claims about conscience. But if so then we simply do not know what they were, because he didn't share them. They claims he actually shared were not observational claims.

He shared his observations Spacemonkey. I don't get you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His arguments require the truth of the presuppositions I listed for you. It is of course possible that they were not presuppositions for him. He might have made actual observations which he did not share and which would have supported these presuppositions. But because he never shared these observations, the requirements I listed remain presuppositions with respect to what he presented in his book - simply because his arguments require them to be true, yet he gave no reasons for thinking that they are true.

You don't know what you're talking about. He made astute observations and presented them in the book. His premises were correct (because his proof was correct), therefore the rest of his extension follows perfectly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you can continue whining about how he never personally presupposed anything all you like. It makes no difference. They still remain presuppositions with respect to the material that he actually shared with us. That means no-one has any reason to agree with his claims until you can find some way to support those things which are presupposed by what he actually wrote.

I can see that you didn't respond to my refutation that blameworthiness is not necessary to feel guilt. I'm really not interested in your argumentation since you will only get more entrenched in your faulty reasoning and then claim victory. Finally, there are no presuppositions that need supporting, so that leaves us with nothing more to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. I based my logic only on what you have tried to tell me about efferent vision. The contradiction comes from you and you alone.

You are making it appear as if there is a contradiction, but there's really not. Light does not have to travel for us to see objects in real time, and you keep referring to this. The actual space between the object and the eye or film is the same whether we're looking at the moon surrounded by darkness, or a candle surrounded by darkness. The brain then interprets the distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as cameras, the light at a camera is the same light at the eye. Light does not have to travel light years to reach the camera in order for a picture to be taken. They both work the same way because the object must be in range for it to be resolved by the film or by the retina. This is why we see the same thing that a camera photographs.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They can't work the same way if Lessans was right, because cameras don't have a brain to "look out" and "see" things. Unless this activity of the brain (i.e. the actually efferent part of efferent vision) is completely redundant, they have to work differently.

The camera doesn't have to have a brain for a photograph to be resolved. The camera is using the same light that the eye uses to take a photograph, and that light is at the camera's film instantly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Since you've gone and brought up vision again, I'm going to require you to answer my list of questions again. The problem for you was Question 4. If you answer 'No' then you have to explain how light which arrived from somewhere other than the object being photographed can have properties which will interact with the film to create an image of that object. If you answer 'Yes' then you have to explain how the light's properties can change during its travel time to match the state of the object at the time when the photograph is taken and the light hits the film.

Neither problem is solvable, and that's why you kept flip-flopping between answering 'Yes' and 'No' each time you realized the answer you were trying to give wouldn't work.

I did not bring up vision again. It was brought up even when I asked people not to bring it up in this thread. The reason I flip flopped is the same reason you can't resolve the problem. You are coming from a different position than me, and there is no resolution. In order to satisfy everyone I was trying to fit a square peg into a round model, and it doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

7. Can light travel faster than light?

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

12. What does a reflection consist of?

13. What does light consist of?

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

I refuse to flip flop again. There is no way I can answer your questions logically when light is a condition of sight, not a cause, in an efferent model. The outcome is very different because if sight was afferent your conclusions would be correct: certain wavelengths arrive first, then others, and so on, but this is not what happens in efferent vision because we're looking directly at the object that is within our visual range.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My only response is that I thought film cameras worked the same way digital cameras worked; just a newer technology. I really don't want to discuss this, so you don't have to answer me.

They do work the same way, according to the standard model of light and sight.

I am asking you to explain your "field of view" idea in the context of efferent vision given the fact that the same piece of equipment (The Hubble telescope) is able to photograph something it cannot "see" or display on a screen to be seen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have continually pointed out to you where your logic is incorrect, and I'll keep doing so.

An error of logic is an invalid inference. You've never shown any such thing. All you do is find things I've said that you personally disagree with, but you never manage to show that those things are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But he did even if you don't see it.

No, he didn't. The things you try to pass off as 'mathematical observations' are neither mathematical nor observations. You are still abusing these terms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic may be valid but it's not sound Spacemonkey. I'm sorry to tell you this, but it's true.

Why should anyone think that is true? Can you show me an argument I've made, identify a faulty premise, and demonstrate that this premise is in fact false?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but in a serious book like this, quick summaries don't cut it because they are incomplete.

You have yet to show anything of significant importance that my summary left out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you are completely confused. In fact, eliminating all moral judgment creates (not eliminates) a morally responsible environment. Moral judgment by others does not a conscientious person make to the degree that is necessary for us to rid the world of evil. Hurting others cannot motivate a guilty conscience unless one recognizes that certain actions are a hurt to others; obviously, if I don't know something is a hurt my conscience will permit me to act on what I'm contemplating [do you remember the example I gave of eating your dinner by accident because I was unaware that it was yours?] Remember, in the new world there is no such thing as right or wrong; only what is a hurt to others, but this has nothing to do with what is blameworthy in others. And you actually think you understand the two-sided equation?

Yes, a moral judgment in the new world comes from knowing that what one is contemplating could seriously hurt another.

Another self-contradiction. You agree that anticipation of a guilty conscience is moral judgment of oneself, and yet still claim to be eliminating all moral judgment. Obviously that will therefore remove all conscience as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh paaaaleeeeeaasseee. This is the most difficult forum I've been to for various reasons.

Nope, it's just the one you're presently at (and therefore the only one you can properly remember).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep using the fact that I've been online for 10 years and keep getting the same response as a premise in which to conclude that therefore Lessans had nothing of significance. Can't you see how unsound your logic is?

If I had ever argued that it would indeed be unsound. But I never have. Go ahead and search my posts for an example of me using your failures at forums as evidence that Lessans was wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to help you with. This is what this discovery proves, but I can't get there when you keep telling me Lessans' observations are wrong even before we've gone over Chapter Two.

Nothing in his chapter supports this assumption. It is what his chapter presupposes about conscience. His non-discovery cannot prove this assumption to be true, for it relies upon it as a premise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will keep on telling you he made no presuppositions. He was an astute observer of reality, from which he drew his conclusions. He made no assumptions beforehand.

This is not a presupposition. This comes after the fact, not before. THERE WERE NO PRESUPPOSITIONS, WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?

Because it is false by definition. Every person and every argument has presuppositions. And whether or not (what I have identified as) his presuppositions really were things he asusmed without reason is irrelevant to the critical fact that they remain presuppositions with respect to the arguments of his book, because no observations or reasons were actually provided to support them. That is why they are presuppositions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way you will know that this is an infallible standard created by God (or this law of our nature) is to see what happens when we remove blame and punishment from the environment, but you're not letting me move forward.

The only thing stopping you from moving forward is the fact that you don't have anything to offer in support of the things his arguments presuppose about conscience. You can't move forward because you have nothing to offer. His arguments presuppose this infallible ethical standard, and you've just agreed that we won't have any reason to think that this is true until it is first implemented, yet it cannot be implemented unless those involved first have some reason to think that it is true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making it appear as if there is a contradiction, but there's really not. Light does not have to travel for us to see objects in real time, and you keep referring to this. The actual space between the object and the eye or film is the same whether we're looking at the moon surrounded by darkness, or a candle surrounded by darkness. The brain then interprets the distance.

But there is a contradiction. You say the properties of the light at the camera determines the nature of the photograph. When I ask you how the light can do that if it never came from the object first, you say that it did travel to the camera from the object (before the picture is taken). But when I ask you how light could change its properties while in transit to match changes in the distant object, you then deny that the light ever travelled from the camera to the object (before the picture was taken).

And no, I'm afraid the space between the eye and the moon is quite different from the space between the eye and a candle (unless the candle is on the moon).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera doesn't have to have a brain for a photograph to be resolved. The camera is using the same light that the eye uses to take a photograph, and that light is at the camera's film instantly.

Then the brain's 'looking out' is still redundant, because the same light used by a camera to form a real time image is right there inside the eye already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not bring up vision again. It was brought up even when I asked people not to bring it up in this thread. The reason I flip flopped is the same reason you can't resolve the problem. You are coming from a different position than me, and there is no resolution. In order to satisfy everyone I was trying to fit a square peg into a round model, and it doesn't work.

Yes, you did bring it up again. And I told you that if you started trying to defend efferent vision again that I would repost the questions you ran away from. And what do you mean by saying I can't resolve the problem? This problem doesn't exist on the afferent model. There is no such problem at all. And the only position I'm coming at this problem from is your position, derived from your answers to my questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to flip flop again. There is no way I can answer your questions logically when light is a condition of sight, not a cause, in efferent vision. You are basing your understanding of light on afferent vision, while I'm basing my understanding of light on efferent vision. The outcome is very different because if sight was afferent your conclusions would be correct that certain wavelengths arrive first, then others, and so on, but this is not what happens in efferent vision because we're looking directly at the object that is within our visual range. That's all I'm going to say.

This is completely dishonest. How did I base anything upon afferent vision? Where did I ever base any conclusion upon anything other than your answers to my questions. Your account is contradictory and inconsistent. And this has nothing at all to do with afferent vision or anyone else's assumptions.

Why can't you be honest with yourself?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They do work the same way, according to the standard model of light and sight.

I am asking you to explain your "field of view" idea in the context of efferent visions given the fact that the same piece of equipment (The Hubble telescope) is able to photograph something it cannot "see" or display on a screen to be seen.

The only reason we can't see something is if it's not large enough or close enough or bright enough to be seen since it would not be within our visual range. Therefore the screen (real substance) you're talking about would be empty. But a telescope's ability to magnify the objects and bring them into range would be able to detect these bits of substance because they can now be resolved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Utter bullshit. And completely dishonest.

How did I base anything upon afferent vision? Where did I ever base any conclusion upon anything other than your answers to my questions.

Your account is contradictory and inconsistent. And this has nothing at all to do with afferent vision or anyone else's assumptions.

Why can't you be honest with yourself?

I am tired of you cursing at me because of your failures. It is not inconsistent. I may not have explained it consistently because I never thought about light in reference to efferent vision. I thought about the brain in terms of efferent vision. Then I realized there are inconsistencies because we cannot come from opposite positions and get a consistent result. Why can't you be honest with yourself for a change? You act like your god's gift to philosophy. You're now grasping at straws so you don't lose the debate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fair enough. Then he made a general claim, similar to the general claim that apples always fall down, not up, from trees due to gravity.

That's an inductive generalization, and is therefore only probable and cannot be mathematically certain. It is also not an observation, but rather an inference based upon observations of particular cases. He did not share the observations upon which his indutive generalizations were allegedly based.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He shared his observations Spacemonkey. I don't get you.

You're doing it again. The same circle. What he actually shared in his book rests upon the unargued-for presuppositions I've identified for you. You say they were not presuppositions because they were derived from 'observations'. But then when pressed you just say that those observations were what he shared in his book! So his observations rest upon the very same presuppositions which they allegedly support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know what you're talking about. He made astute observations and presented them in the book. His premises were correct (because his proof was correct), therefore the rest of his extension follows perfectly.

Why should anyone believe that his observations were astute or that his premises were correct?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that you didn't respond to my refutation that blameworthiness is not necessary to feel guilt. I'm really not interested in your argumentation since you will only get more entrenched in your faulty reasoning and then claim victory. Finally, there are no presuppositions that need supporting, so that leaves us with nothing more to say.

You haven't refuted the point that both blameworthiness and a guilty conscience each equally rely upon judgements of moral responsibility. And as I just explained, the following are presuppositions of his book's arguments, regrdles of whether or not they were presuppositions for him. And they certainly do need supporting:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You and he are assuming that conscience proceeds from an infallible and perfect God-given standard of rightness and wrongness possessed by everyone, and which is defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting. What it rules out is the much more plausible possibility that conscience proceeds only from our own fallible judgments of moral responsibility, and is an imperfect and evolved aspect of our cognitive psychology capable of varying between individuals quite independently of our cultural practices of blame and punishment (which themselves are an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience).